Newsletter November 2006
Number 33
President : The Earl of Normanton
Vice Presidents: Orri Vigfusson and Hugh Miles
Registered Charity No: 1051068
Headline News: Irish Government Bans Salmon Drift Nets.
Minister Noel Dempsey TD announced on the 1st November that the Irish Government has adopted all the recommendations of it’s Independent Salmon Group. Salmon drift netting is banned forthwith with an immediate compulsory buy out of all salmon drift netsmen.
Dear Members and Friends,
At last, this important news for North Atlantic Salmon conservation in the UK and throughout southern Europe was announced by the Irish Government earlier this month.
Late in October, Marine Minister Noel Dempsey’s Independent Salmon Group reported their findings to him and his cabinet. They were unequivocal in their advice; salmon drift netting must stop. The report offers three prime reasons, and here I paraphrase.
The EU Habitats Directive, in 1.4.1. earns four paragraphs in which our infringement case is specifically referred to. In particular the Reasoned Opinion (Final Warning) issued by the Commission clearly stated that "to avoid further infringements cases Ireland must comply with this directive (the Habitats Directive) and eschew drift-netting (MSF) in 2007".
Compliance with Ireland’s own scientific advice which, briefly, said that achievement of conservation limits in Ireland’s SAC rivers was not possible whilst drift netting continued.
The "International Dimension". The report refers to NASCO pressure upon Ireland to comply with international best practice. It also states: expert opinion in the UK considers the fishery has a significant effect on salmon destined for rivers outside Ireland, including the UK. Specifically English Nature considers that the fishery is contributing to the failure to comply with their conservation limits of rivers on the south and west coasts of England. They also say; "A 2003 report notes " "the Irish drift-net fishery is thought to take as much as 15% of the salmon stock of west coast rivers in England and Wales and up to 20% of the stock of southern English rivers." Going on to other statements of 12% of our southern fish.
The group propose the setting up of a 25 million euro hardship fund for displaced netsmen and a further 5 million euro community fund toward the development of job opportunities in tourism etc.
I believe this to be an excellent study of the subject that has reached the right conclusions. If I have one criticism, it is the lack of emphasis upon the critical need to fund and provide adequate policing, to ensure that no illegal fishing continues. None of the figures quoted make allowance for illegal fishing, ‘unreported catch’ and seal predation.
There is no doubt that this whole political shift owes everything to the vast groundswell of international opinion, orchestrated and voiced by angling conservationists, politicians, N G O’s and diplomatic pressures from the whole salmon world. I desist from naming names. We know them all. They have been reported upon, they have written for us, helped us and, I hope and believe, we have helped them.
On behalf of all our readers I extend our sincere thanks and congratulation. Not to be overlooked, in this context, is the European Commission. Some might see them as unlikely allies but the meticulous handling, assiduous application, careful advice and skill have been pivotal throughout this long and complicated process.
It may not be generally known that any E U citizen can express their concerns or lodge a complaint to the Commission for examination and perhaps process, without incurring any costs from the Commission.
Minister Noel Dempsey accepted the whole report and, in the face of considerable political and domestic opposition, has carried it through. He is to be congratulated both for the appointment of the Group, and acting upon their findings.
You can locate the report, Irish Government statement and other relevant links on our web site at;
http://www.wsrt.org.uk/news/irishnets.html
I have been personally overwhelmed by the deluge of messages of good will and congratulation from so many well wishers. In particular, I have enjoyed those from our Irish friends and colleagues, including a warm message from the Chairman of the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers. I am very grateful, but say again, this has been a massive team effort in which I am just one player.
Already though I am hearing some statements being retailed that disturb me. They are based on ‘When’ the drift nets are stopped’ and include intentions to charge anglers more to salmon fish. To get more salmon anglers fishing for them. Even ‘it will be good to take fish home again’! Surely these aspirations are premature.
I am fearful of such attitudes. Not simply on behalf of those anglers who have paid their money and stuck to it through thick and thin, doing everything they can to conserve the asset. But for the fish.
We must keep things in proportion. The official EA / Dept. of the Marine ESTIMATE is that we could get an additional 11% spawners return.
Up to mid November, about 1050 salmon and sea trout passed through the counter at Knapp Mill. If the salmon constituent is 1,000, we might get an additional 110/120 fish back in 2007, possibly more in 2008, depending on the survival of their progeny, and so on. Most of these fish will be grilse. The average variation in rod and net combined catch over the past 5 years is about 60 fish. We will still have concreted gravel laced with insecticide, herbicide and silt being delivered in nutrient enriched water.
I believe, possibly as much as anyone, that the closure of those drift nets is vital to the recovery of our salmon. I also believe in a sustainable harvest. But it will take a long time and we must continue to exercise utmost restraint. Remember; the drift nets are only one of our many problems. There is yet a great deal to do.
Our problems, unsurprisingly, are shared with our neighbouring rivers to the East and West. One such, the River Axe, runs through Somerset and a little of East Devon and is cared for by the Axe Vale Rivers Association whose Secretary and Treasurer, David Burford is a long term member of WSRT. He is a very welcome visitor, as a contributing observer, to some of our committee meetings where we can mutually benefit from shared experiences and knowledge.
Brian Marshall.
You will be forgiven if you did not recognising this, at first glance, as the newsletter to which we are all accustomed. Our new venture into colour, for the front and back covers, is made possible by the graphic design and photographic skills of Trevor Harrop and John Levell respectively, and we hope it will be permanent.
Those of you who are familiar with our website on www.wsrt.org.uk hosted by John, will recognise the intimacy with the valley and it’s flora and fauna portrayed in the ‘Avon Diary’. We hope to illustrate some of the features we write about in the same way.
Count update (so far).
River Hampshire Avon. Figures in brackets represent 2005 catches
Salmon Rods 144 (121)
Mudeford Nets Salmon 57 (56)
Sea Trout 242 (646)
Knapp Mill Counter to mid November c.1050 Salmon & Sea Trout.
River Frome.
Salmon 52 of which 40 (77%) returned
Sea Trout 100 of which 21 returned
River Piddle
Salmon 4 all returnedSea Trout 36 of which 21 (58%) released.
Poole Harbour net
Salmon 8 (---) Sea Trout 13 (---)
Preliminary & Partial Results;
River Test Rods 429 (459)
River Itchen Rods 87 (148)
Counters RiverTest 624
Little River No report but estimated + ? (Total 1129)
R. Itchen 456 (410)
A Thoroughly Fine Initiative.
In the last newsletter both John Levell and myself made reference to a new habitat improvement project being undertaken by the trust on the Avon. This project is the re-establishment of two ox-bow lakes on the Somerley Estate that over the years have done what ox-bow lakes This scenario has been exacerbated by the filling in of both the inlets and outlets of each oxbow to provide uninterrupted angling access to the riverbank. Of course, projects such as this one might not be necessary if the river basin was still managed in a way reminiscent of the past. So many water meadows have, in recent years, fallen into disrepair. Traditionally managed water meadows and catch meadows, where irrigation was achieved through a system of inlet and outlet channels. This job, which was historically carried out by a 'Drowner', whose job title, though unimaginative, left no one in doubt of its physical nature, have fallen out of use. This is probably due to a number of contributory factors, such as the labour intensive nature of the job, modern agricultural procedures and the provision of the free weed cut, amongst others. However, this has had diverse consequences besides the irrigation factor, inasmuch as the channels provided valuable habitat for all manner of species of wildlife and, more particularly for us, it provided off river refuge for fry. The provision of these fry bays also afforded sanctuary to other small fishes that, due to immature musculature, were unable to hold station in fast flowing water and more particularly in flood conditions.
Over the past twelve years or so the Avon Valley has seen three floods of one hundred year probability and we firmly believe that these floods have had a flushing effect on the river. One of the consequences is that, due to lack of off river refuge, many of the smaller fish, juveniles and fry, have ended up, as one committee member described it, as Bass food. The Environment Agencies 2005 fish stock survey, (see graph), whilst unsurprisingly revealing the extremely worrying shortage of silver fish in the middle Avon, long suspected by anglers, also adds credence to the 'flushing effect' theory. .It does this by showing that roach numbers in the upper and lower Avon are far healthier, by comparison, to the middle river where the survey points to a "paucity of roach". (A1R Salisbury - A7R Royalty to Clay Pool) Data below courtesy of the Environment Agency, Blandford.
The relevant bodies, some of who have looked very favourably on the initiative, have now granted all the required consents. So, by the time you read this newsletter, both ox-bows, named "Park" and "Coomer" will have been excavated and the sites ready to receive their new influx of refugees. The excavation of these ox-bows will improve the water quality within them, which will, consequently, generate an aquatic soup of micr-organism, mollusc and invertebrate life, providing a veritable banquet for those that inhabit them. Most importantly, it will provide essential shelter and sanctuary from the potentially fatal high water each winter brings. In addition to this, the project will provide habitat for all manner of riverine species including small mammals and reptiles and although it could be argued that, as they stand, the ox-bows serve a purpose, it is unarguable that the enhancements and restorations made, will only improve the function of the habitat that already exists. At present, Coomer has an abundant growth of Common Reed beds that provide cover for nesting birds. However; in the future they will also provide refuge and offer protection to fry and juvenile fish populations from predation as well as flooding. Of course, the intention has never been to simply dig two holes in the ground and leave. Amongst our plans is the addition of an Otter Holt, yes, that's right, an Otter Holt. This will be built utilising timber pollarded from some of the existing willows. These willows will, in turn, provide nesting sites for bees, bats, birds and anything else that I can think of that begins with B and likes hollow trees. Undergrowth will be partially removed to promote the growth of ground covering plants and marginal species such as rushes and sedge.
Ongoing scientific analysis of the sites is to be undertaken by Sparsholt College and wildlife filmmaker and W.S.R.T. Vice President Hugh Miles will also be keeping a before, during and after record on film.
Projects on other lowland rivers have shown that habitat enhancement has a highly significant and positive affect on total fish abundance and fish assemblage diversity, and the trust foresees that the positive advantages of projects such as this will resonate throughout the catchment, and that other riparian owners will see the ecological and conservation implications of this project and others like them. There is little doubt that in order to put a stop to the rot, the Water Framework Directive and, with it, the Habitat Directive is the way ahead for the Avon. At a time when we all bemoan the intervention of Brussels in our way of life it would seem that that intervention could be seen as timely.
Since beginning this piece I have been to see for myself the completed excavations. It was difficult when viewing the plans for the project to get any clear idea of their scale. However on close inspection they are quite immense and have by far exceeded my wildest dreams and expectations. Personally I am extremely excited about the potential of this scheme and know that I am not alone in being proud to be part of it. There is little doubt in the minds of those that have pushed for this that the positive implications far outweigh the negative. In fact we can see no negatives, and surely nobody could fail to recognise that this ox-bow project will be a resounding success and one that will be talked about far into the future, certainly by me.
WSRT have led the funding, assisted by the financial contributions offered by The Earl of Normanton, Christchurch Angling Club and the demonstrably expert contractor Earlscote Ltd.
We are very grateful.
Budgie Price.
WSRT salmon egg-box project.
Under the 'Research' section on the WSRT website you will find initial plans for conducting a trial use of egg-boxes for salmon on the Hampshire Avon. At the end of August 2006 approval 'in principle' was given by the Avon Salmon Group (ASG), a consortium of organisations including Environment Agency, Natural England, Wessex Water, WSRT, Avon and Stour Fisheries Association, Mudeford Netsmen. Their support was critical to kick-start a collaborative project that aims to answer some difficult questions over a three-year time scale.
Why do it?
Currently we see no evidence of Avon salmon population recovery (based on rod-catch and net-catch data). This is despite catch-and-release (rods and netsmen) and extensive gravel cleaning since 1995. EA salmon parr survey data (1988 until 2005) demonstrate varying and generally low numbers (long-term average of c.3 parr per 100 square metres). The EA are of the opinion that parr numbers show a slight upward trend in the last 5 years. I have questioned this interpretation on several points, e.g., the number of sites monitored is very small; sites will differ each year in their representation of the river stock because of prevailing river discharge; the 3-month 'window' for parr monitoring provides differing scope for parr mortality between survey sites in the same year.
What will it show?
The egg-box project is designed to provide a known number of swim-up fry from native stock. The swim-up fry will be planted out at realistic densities, based on historical information from rivers with thriving salmon populations. The release sites will be surveyed in July and September to establish mortality (including displacement) rates to see whether they produce more parr than reaches where natural spawning is known to occur. The released parr could potentially influence EA parr monitoring, so release locations will be selected several miles from routine monitoring sites, sufficiently far to avoid influencing numbers at monitoring sites.
If parr densities at release sites are significantly higher than found throughout the Avon on comparable natural spawning reaches, it will show natural recruitment is being limited by the numbers of swim-up fry emerging from the redds. Fine sediment infill of redds is already known to give high egg-mortalities and is the reason for the annual gravel-cleaning programme. This trial will indicate whether extending the gravel cleaning will be beneficial. If parr densities from the egg-box release are similar to those found on the Avon during routine EA monitoring, then constraints on the salmon population recovery may be associated with poor habitat quality, as well as egg-mortality.
How will it work?
The plan is to strip eggs and milt from 2 hen and 2 cock salmon (around the week after Christmas), placing the fertilised eggs in (up to) four incubators within a reasonable distance of target release sites for swim-up fry. Ideally, the brood fish should be from the same watercourse. One of the main ASG concerns has been the capture of ripe brood fish. This is currently done by electro-fishing on the Test and Itchen by the EA (and on the Frome last year by Centre for Ecology and Hydrology). The concern focuses on welfare of adult salmon that are captured but not ready for stripping. David Solomon has been commissioned to review the latest electro-fishing methods, the advice from his review, which Rae Boras has funded, will be carefully considered. Capture of brood fish is dependent on securing appropriately qualified and experienced people (coinciding with suitable river conditions!) to do the task. Other options for obtaining brood fish and/or eggs are under consideration.
The EA redd count data tells us where the fish are spawning each year. The swim-up fry from egg-boxes will be released into reaches with suitable parr habitat upstream from the redds (of the year). Current studies on the Wylye (by Wessex Water) and on the Frome by CEH indicate that (conveniently!) very few salmon parr disperse in an upstream direction.
I'll be happy to discuss the project and your ideas for ensuring its success. This project is dependant on a combination of voluntary help, collaboration and commissioned expertise. Up to the beginning of November, in addition to Rae’s research funding, the EA have agreed to purchase the egg-boxes, Wessex Water will fund the parr surveys, Christchurch Angling Club have agreed to provide some funding and WSRT will cover the remaining year one costs. I am very interested to discuss potential sites for egg-boxes and release of swim-up fry at the best locations throughout the Avon catchment over the next three years.
Jon Bass. WSRT Project Manager.
Thanks to Tesco
Our sponsors, Tesco Stores, have confirmed that the increasingly popular Tesco ‘Swap a Salmon’ scheme will continue through the 2007 season. Apologies to the 2005 qualifiers, whose vouchers have only recently been dispatched, The delay results, in part, from very late submissions of some claims. In future, to reduce a fragmented administration burden upon our benefactors, all claims will be collated by Brian and submitted together by the end of November each year. Unfortunately, any information arriving too late to meet that date will not qualify.
Tesco also support WSRT with very important core funding for our discretionary use for salmon and river conservation Without that support we could not undertake a fraction of the projects we report here.
Defra Spending Cuts
Many of you will have read in the press about the draconian mid year cuts in funding from Defra to our collective conservation and regulatory bodies. No body escapes. The Environment Agency of course, they suffer a £28 million cut which includes a further £400,000 cut in already seriously reduced Grant in Aid (GiA) to the Fisheries (Migratory Salmonids) pot. Natural England, during the actual Defra instigated merger process of English Nature, The Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Agency and British Waterways Authority, who say they will have to halt restoration work and may have to close some canals.
The impact upon our region, with it’s major salmonid responsibilities, is the loss of £57,000 from already stretched £122,000 salmon project budget. Exeter tell us that, as a result of this and the national cut, the region is embarking upon an efficiency-driven reassessment of it’s current way of working.
Chris Klee, Chairman of the South West Regional Fisheries, Ecology & Recreation Committee, of which Brian is a member, wrote, on behalf of all the committee members, in protest to Secretary of State Ben Bradshaw MP, pointing out the environmental dangers of further cuts in an already over stretched and much deleted funding stream. The response was predicable. It did include a suggestion that the EA should use all rod licence fees and Grant in Aid as one funding source for all fisheries work. To date salmon and sea trout have stood alone. The EA are not proposing to accept that suggestion.
What is the cause of this disruptive and major threat to the care and regulation of our environment., which includes £15 million cut in flood prevention? Defra mismanagement and overspending on the introduction of the Single Farm Payments System, and unplanned spend on Avian Flu.
Who Speaks for you?
John Levell’s article "Nationalisation by Stealth" in the last newsletter makes a strong case for fishing to be set free from government interference and whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for the points John makes, I see little chance of it happening as things stand at present.
Over recent years it is true to say that fisheries has lost its prominence, but why should this be? Are we less effective in our lobbying and influencing? Have we been overtaken by other interests represented by stronger organisations? Whatever your view, if the agenda is to change, it has to start with angler’s and fisheries interests taking the initiative. We cannot expect others to fight for us; anglers and fisheries interests need to demonstrate that they are "fit for purpose" before the powers that be would sit back and listen.
John is right, with anglers paying £20M per annum in rod licence fees and payments to riparian owners for access to fishing we should not allow our voice to be treated on a par with those that contribute nothing. But this is what is happening.
Government regularly quote 4 million anglers in England and Wales who generate circa £3.5 billion per annum in socio economic value - surely that should provide angling and fisheries the guarantee of a seat at the table. You would think so, but anyone looking in from the outside sees something rather different. It must be totally confusing; numerous groups / organisations all claiming to be different and fighting one another for members and their very existence. Fragmentation is not conducive to a concerted attack and what makes matters worse is the apathy that exists amongst anglers. I doubt if the combined individual membership of the Salmon & Trout Association, National Federation of Anglers and the National Federation of Sea Anglers is more than 30,000 or put it another way over 99% of the angling population do not belong to one of the so called governing bodies. The result is these organisations are totally under funded, often relying on willing volunteers and consequently unable to achieve their full potential. Surely, if individuals care for the future of their sport these organisations deserve greater support.
Unity in angling is increasingly becoming an issue and this presents a major challenge to the various organisations. It is not going to be easy to truthfully respond to what is in the best interests of angling and fisheries when their very own independence is seen to be under threat. Fisheries & Angling Conservation Trust has made a start in attempting to provide a unified voice but there is a long way to go and it lacks adequate funding. We must work towards a truly unified, independent, well funded, professional organisation to represent angling and fisheries interests. Until progress can be evidenced I regret that, despite the logic of John’s arguments, we will not get the recognition they deserve.
(Perhaps this is why Government gets away with seriously damaging funding cuts with impunity. Ed)
John Slader
Unpowered Craft
Dragon boats, multi-man (or woman) rafts, lilos, dinghies, punts, float tubes, skiffs, kayaks, pedalos, coxed fours, sixes, eight’s, surf boards, coracles, are there more?
The British Canoe Union claim to represent them all. Demonstrably untrue. They claim to represent them all whilst they demand, yes demand, unlimited, unregistered, unlicensed, unaccountable, unpaid access to all rivers and streams throughout their whole length, and throughout Britain. They make this demand regardless of ownership, stewardship, environmental condition or protection, existing leases and tenancies. Their demands eschew existing voluntary agreements. They refuse to negotiate new voluntary agreements.
Salmon & Trout Association - A Policy Statement
Angling and Canoe Access to Rivers and Streams
This debate is all too often seen by the media as "anglers versus canoeists". It is a myth that anglers are anti-canoe - in fact they fully support the principle of voluntary negotiated agreements which is in line with Government Policy.Anglers do not have free or automatic right of access to rivers or lakes. Before being able to access a water body to fish, an individual must be in possession of:
i) an Environment Agency Licence (age 12 and over),
ii) have the permission of the riparian owner, which in the vast majority of cases requires payment - direct or through a tenant, angling club or syndicate
iii) in almost every case, the individual would also have appropriate third party liability insurance cover.
Having secured the above, the individual is bound by rules and regulations (both statutory and those of the individual fishery). Failure to comply with these can result in the individual being identified, banned from the fishery and, in some cases, prosecuted. Recent evidence shows that the majority of funds generated by angling is invested back into the fishery, targeting fishery management, sustainable biodiversity, environmental and conservation work.
S&TA supports Joint Access Agreements, provided they address the following:
• As with angling, the regulation of canoeing and adoption of an enforceable code of conduct
• A unique marking system on canoes to allow for identification
• Equitable payment for use of the resource
• An acceptable national form of registration and third party insurance cover
• Provisions to protect fragile environments and habitats - particularly in SSSI’s and cSACs - including fish spawning and juvenile areas and bird nesting sites.
• Acknowledgement that, whilst angling as a pastime does not inhibit canoeing, the pressure of canoes can in some cases render angling impossible in small streams and on non-navigable rivers.
• Consideration being given to controlling the increasing use of rafts, which is already seen as an issue in Scotland
• Acknowledgement that the unique situation in Scotland, where open access is permitted, has little relevance to England and Wales, where population density is far greater and rivers tend to be smaller than in Scotland.
• Acknowledgement that waterborne diseases and parasites can be transferred between river catchments by canoes (as with angling equipment), and that this issue can only be addressed in the context of a regulated activity.
Whilst there is scope for canoeists and anglers to share many of our rivers, it is essential that a proper balance is struck both to protect the environment and to prevent one group, who presently pay nothing, from spoiling the sport of those who have invested a huge amount of time and money in helping to create excellent fisheries and thriving wildlife habitats.
Who Owns Water
Compounding these risks to our environment are the ever moving manipulations of the financial world.
YTL Power International of Kuala Lumpur acquired Wessex Water in May 2002.
Recent financial headlines led with "Thames Water sold for £8 billion to Australian bank Macquarie".
Not withstanding the best efforts of those at the coal face here on our rivers and aquifer, how high does the environmental protection of our SAC’s, SSSI’s, ESA’s etc., appear on the agenda in the far flung board rooms of these multi nationals?
EA Area changes
The four areas of the South West Region are to be reduced to two. Devon and Cornwall are merging, as are North and South Wessex., now just ‘Wessex Area’ Nick Gupta is to be our Area Manager. Martin Weiller is Area Manager Devon and Cornwall. Graham Green Buckley, our previous Area Manager, is currently seconded to the supervision of Buncefield oil depot clean up.
Ron Curtis, who has been our Area Environment Manager since BRITE, stays with us as A E M South Wessex and Somerset. We welcome this continuity.
Judith Crompton; our former Fisheries, Recreation & Biodiversity Team Leader, is reassigned to the Hampshire Avon Water Level Management Plan and Mr D J Gent has just been appointed to that position. ‘DJ’ has been with Southern Region for ten years in a fisheries science capacity. This included close involvement with the Test and Itchen egg box schemes. His experience will be valuable to our project. EA state that they will do everything they can to maintain service levels, and I am sure they mean it, but to me it is unimaginable that a 46% cut in the regional migratory salmonid budget will not reflect in achievement of that objective.
Demonstrably the care and protection, not to mention enhancement, of our environment has dropped several place in the Defra leagues tables.
A Personal View From The Sharp End or "Time To Take The Plunge"
MP Martin Salter is, as I am sure you are all aware, endeavouring to start a debate that will help define the future of angling. Whilst talk of a one pound levy to support a dedicated governing body for angling is stimulating discussion it would seem to me to be paying twice for the same service. I thought I paid sixty odd pounds per year to have my fishery interests maintained, improved and developed!
In my personal submission to the 2000/2001 EA Review board I included a scenario for the shape of fishery representation in the future. That future did not include a fisheries division within the EA and at the time support for such a proposal was pretty thin on the ground. The intervening years have seen several changes in fisheries division of the EA and alternatives are now being seriously considered. There have been a flurry of questionnaires and forums asking the views of informed recipients of the Fisheries Departments services; the results do not paint a rosy picture.
BRITE arrived and went, or didn’t, it’s difficult to decide just what did happen with regard to the Better Regulation In The Environment. Fisheries funding in the form of GIA has now been subject to cuts imposed by Defra to help relieve the in-house cock-up single farm payments turned out to be. With the cuts in funding come the associated cuts in staff and services. Research and staff on the ground have become a distant memory in many areas. Fisheries are now having to rely on handouts and scraps thrown to it by conservation funding and agri/environmental schemes from the EU etc.
We have the legislation to protect the ecology of our rivers from pollution, abstraction etc. We also have the legislation to maintain, improve and develop our fisheries yet the past two decades have seen a catastrophic decline in the state of many fisheries throughout the country. We have the EA congratulating themselves on seeing an improvement in a self determined target to maintain the species such as the salmon conservation targets. What we don’t have is the means to determine how we go about creating an abundance that allows a commercial exploitation of the species and that includes rod fisheries.
When we look to the future we must look for positive elements that we can reliably predict will remain constant. We must assume that angling will remain a pastime that attracts many to participate. We must also assume that the continuance of this participation is dependent on there being abundant fish stocks to exploit. It is amazing how buoyant fish stocks attract anglers be they dace in the Hampshire Avon, seatrout in the west coast streams, salmon in Russia or carp in the bagging pools; provide the fish and they will come - angling's "Field of Dreams" - but its true.
One other constant is that some one will own these rivers and this ownership is the factor that has to be the driving force of future management. We are all too well acquainted with the ability of the various angling representative bodies to organise themselves. The areas that appear to have the most influential and successful representative groups are those that are steered by riparian interests because without the backing of the owners most strategies are struggling before they get off the ground.
The harsh reality is that the groups representing the various disciplines and species are in the most part ineffectual in the management of rivers. They are at best effective lobby groups, but the right to determine the fishery future of most rivers lies with the owners and tenants. Should an owner be in a position where income from fishery tenancy is not required he has the simple option of saying his or her river remains closed to all but guests. However in the majority of instances the asset has to be realised in one form or another and the various groups representing the disciplines and species have the opportunity to have their say. In most instances the advice available from the various experts in their fields is well meant and appreciated but it is just that, advice.
The rationale is to have an effective management group in position on all rivers with an umbrella organisation such as that which exists in every other sport in the land. In reality the infrastructure already exists on our rivers. We have riparian interests well represented on many catchment groups and we have, in ART, an umbrella organisation capable of representing those catchment committees and forums at a national level. That in its simplest format is all that is required to manage the future of fisheries in England and Wales. Obviously the professional employment of fishery administrators, scientists, enforcement officers etc. will be for catchment groups to determine. Each catchment may possibly have a Defra financed fisheries officer and associated staff, their role would be regulatory in that they would advise the catchment committees of their obligations under the law. They may also be responsible for contract specification and data storage and distribution but this will be a role independent of the EA.
Rod licence money should be distributed per capita and individual catchment levies should be permissible on waters which warrant them; you wouldn’t expect to play golf at St Andrews for the same price as the municipal course next door. How the local rate is raised is for the catchment committees to decide, but the simplest way is a fixed percentage on tickets or leases. The local rate on the Tweed is raised through the head price paid by the riparian owners on each salmon and seatrout landed. This is obviously passed on to the rods but with a premium of 80 pounds per salmon within the region of 15000 landed annually I will leave you to do the sums.
John Levell
River Axe - David Burford reports:
Stocking of native trout/sea trout
The River Axe forms part of the border between Dorset and Somerset in some of the most beautiful of the Wessex countryside. The Axe around Forde Abbey, near Chard, was one of the target areas for distributing the 10,000 autumn parr being stocked into the Axe Vale Rivers. 45% of the total went into the Axe and its upper tributaries, and the lower main tributaries of the Yarty and the Coly received 45% and 10% respectively. These fish were hatched at the Dolgellau hatchery in Wales from native Axe eggs stripped from five Axe sea trout, mixed with milt from Axe cock trout and sea trout. This stocking is part of The Sea Trout Project run by Axe Vale Rivers Association (AVRA) and will be run for an initial trial period of three to five years and possibly longer. After four consecutive years of declining sea trout catches, the project is aimed at giving the river a kick-start. This follows a campaign by FWAG to improve farming practices, aimed at reducing the amount of silt getting into the spawning beds. The heavens seemed to smile on this stocking of 14 September because it rained solidly but gently over the night before, giving the waters extra flow and carrying capacity to receive these brave little fish of up to 10 cm. The day after brought a handsome 4 pound sea trout - just in case we had forgotten what we were aiming at! The fish was released unharmed to continue his journey up to the spawning grounds. All the stocked fish were fin-clipped for identification at the rear of the adipose fin.
Any inquiries or reports of fin-clipped fish (as trout or sea trout) from next season onwards are requested, please, to:
David Burford. (Secretary/Treasurer of AVRA) tel: 0208 946 9453.
75 Years Fishing
I hardly fished this summer, not because of low flows or few fish in the Avon, but because of a loft conversion. Our family, or, in my wife’s view, my fishing tackle, had outgrown our house. As we could not afford to move "the only way was up." Climbing up scaffolding that encased our house let me look beyond our estate to the distant Sussex Downs. The chance to see countryside in the distance was a joy that lifted my thoughts even when I could not find time to fish. I now have my desk in the loft and sit writing looking over roofs to the rolling hills beyond. These distant glimpses help to reconnect me with the natural world and changing seasons on a daily basis. This might seem a small thing, but for years I have been imprisoned on the sort of housing estate that John Prescott would like to suffocate southern England. The only saving grace is that our lawn is too small for a game of croquet, so "Two Shags" is unlikely to visit!
In July the Downs bleached in the heat wave to a straw coloured land dotted with trees. Now the rain has healed them green and a warm autumn has kept the trees in leaf. A ruined windmill harks back to a 19th century of downland shepherds, corn growing and only the bare beginning of rail transport. A taste of how different the wildlife of Sussex was 150 years ago is to be found in "Ornithological Rambles in Sussex" by A. E. Knox, published in 1855. Knox was a salmon fisherman best known for his book "Autumns on the Spey," but his skills as a naturalist were extensive. When he wrote in 1855 the land around Arundel was still wild marshland haunted by the chilling boom of the bittern. Old people remembered great bustard on the downs above Brighton. What of salmon fishing then? Knox tells us about the Spey and its distinctive flies. Scrope had written of the Tweed, but our Wessex rivers seem lost in a dark age with no chronicler of their salmon or salmon fishing, or so I thought.
In 1906 an elderly angler named C. G. Barrington C.B. wrote of his fishing memories in "Seventy Years Fishing." A sepia frontispiece shows a white bearded man in a surprisingly rakish trilby changing his fly by a stream. He had caught his first trout in 1836 and had fished for salmon in the Tweed and Hampshire Avon during the second half of the nineteenth century. An angling career that began twenty one years after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo and ended as the first motor cars took to our roads can tell us a lot about the Avon and its salmon run in the Victorian age.
During his life "the supply of fish of the salmon kind has seriously decreased." Royal commissions had investigated and his book includes snatches from their 1902 report. Barrington viewed official action, or more correctly inaction, with perceptive scepticism.
"Let us take as an example the Hampshire Avon, a river which I fished for many years, and with which I am well acquainted. The total number of salmon killed yearly by net and rod during the period between 1860 and 1870 might be reckoned at 700 or 800, in some years more. The evidence taken by the Commission shows a woeful decrease -indeed the upper river seems to be pretty well fished out. One of the upper proprietors, who had killed as many as sixty-four fish in a season, states that in 1902 he could not catch even a kelt. The fish, he says, are gone. The representative of the fisherman at the mouth of the river tells the Commissioners that there is only one boat at work at ‘the Run’ (the lowest netting station), the fishing having become so bad. Nevertheless he considers the present close time for nets long enough, and attributes the falling off to the want of proper passes to enable the fish to reach the spawning beds. With reference to this statement, it should be borne in mind that the obstructions to travelling fish were the same as when twelve or more nets were in use at the Run, and when the gentleman referred to above could kill fifty or sixty fish with the rod during a season of three or four months.
Well there we are, no progress since 1906. We are still buying off nets and still waiting for government action. It is frustrating to the point of insanity to know that official inactivity and incompetence still blight the Avon. What is more they now seek to obstruct any private action to help the river! Barrington was troubled by many of the same angling questions as us, what salmon see and why they take.
"At the head of ‘the Royalty’ is Knap Weir, and just below the weir stream a large stone was put into the water ( it is unclear whether a full flood risk and environmental impact assessment was required in the 19th century before a pebble could be placed in a river! ) , behind which a salmon would sometime rest. A fish had shown himself at this spot, but had declined the flies which were offered him. The next day was a Saturday, when the hatches and racks of Knapp Weir, as well as those belonging to other weirs up the water, would all be drawn, thus creating an artificial flood, during which the abstemious salmon would assuredly pass from ‘the Royalty’ to the pools above. Sooner than lose the chance of getting the fish, my friends procured some prawns, one of which was threaded on a hook, and offered to him, with no result. The river keeper remarked that the prawns had not been cooked, and therefore still retained their natural grey appearance; upon which, he was desired to take them away and bring them back boiled. When he returned a red prawn was tendered to the salmon; it was instantly seized, and in due course the fish was gaffed and knocked on the head. I would ask, with proper submission, what could induce a salmon to refuse a prawn in its natural state, and take it eagerly when cooked? It certainly looks as though the only possible answer should be- change of colour from a grey prawn to a red one."
"On the Avon, near Christchurch, when I first knew it, it was considered hardly necessary to use any fly but ‘the Bolingbroke,’ which was made with wings of the long feathers from a golden pheasant’s topping, the body fiery brown, ribbed with gold lace. I provided myself with some of this pattern when elected a member of the small club that rented the Royalty, but finding that the Tweed flies, Jock Scots, Childers, Stevensons and Co. were just as effective, I got no more Bolingbrokes, the wings being too brittle for use, in the strong south-westers to which that part of the river was exposed. Later, the Eagle became a favourite fly on the Avon, and I remember an old gentleman, who had killed fish on the river for many years, and who used none but huge Red Palmers, wingless lures. Certainly the Eagle, the large Red Palmer, the Bolingbroke, and the Tweed patterns were as unlike one another as possible."
As well as being a regular Royalty rod with fly and prawn, spinning being barely mentioned in his Avon accounts, Barrington also caught the first Somerley salmon. To be continued in the next issue
Mike Twitchen
Diary Dates 2007:
WSRT Charity Pike Match: Sunday 25th February. Contact: Charles Landell on 01425 478108 Annual General Meeting & Social Evening, Downton: 16th March, 7pm Usual attractions.
WSRT AUCTION: 16th March 2007
The popular annual auction which follows the AGM is a vital funding source for the Trust and we are always in need of lots. Fishing opportunities, tackle, art, books; anything saleable. If you are able to offer any items we would be very pleased to hear from you. Your help is imperative. Please contact John Slader – 01794-884736 or email slader@john5.demon.co.uk We are grateful to Davis Tackle of Christchurch for their support of this newsletter.
Are you a member?
We are very happy for you to be reading this whether or not you have joined WSRT in their efforts to improve the lot of our rivers and their inhabitants. But we want you to join us. It could not be easier. Just £10.00 per year and a stamp to send the form found on the "membership page". £100 will give you life membership. Or direct debit, with automatic renewal also available. We look forward to welcoming you.
Wessex Salmon & Rivers Trust
Registered No: 1051068
Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust, and the editor in particular, are grateful to all those who have contributed to this newsletter or provided information. Opinions expressed and/or statements made by individuals are not those of the committee of trustees collectively unless it is specifically indicated otherwise.